Athanasius' Writings

[Goodcheer68]

Im looking to study Athanasius over the next year or so. Ive read On the Incarnation and a few of his letters and I want to read more. He has a lot of writings to chose from and I only have a limited amount of time. So Im looking for a list (if that is possible) of his undisputed works. Works that all of or the majority of scholars agree were written by him. Does anyone have any info or can point me in the right direction? @BayouHuguenot

 

[RamistThomist]

His most important work is his Four Discourses Against the Arians.

His most exciting work is his Life of Antony.

https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/athanasius-orations-against-the-arians/

 

[DTK]

R. P. C. Hanson has pointed out that "The work called Orationes contra Arianos survives in four books, the fourth of which is now universally allowed to be by some other hand than that of Athanasius." See his The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), p. 418.

 

[DTK]

Just thought I would take the opportunity here to post some of my favorite citations from Athanasius regarding Holy Scripture from this work of his on the Holy Spirit . . .

Romanists love to cite the immediate passage below as proof for Athanasius supporting their nebulous concept of unwritten tradition, but when examined in context (as Shapland did) it becomes readily apparent that Athanasius is referencing tradition transmitted by Holy Scripture . . .

Athanasius (297-373): These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame.
But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the Holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is over all, and through all, and in all’—‘over all’, as Father, as beginning, as fountain; ‘through all’, through the Word; ‘in all’, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19). C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.27-28 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), pp. 133-136.
Greek text: Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ μόνα καθʼ ἑαυτὰ λεγόμενα περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος δείκνυσιν αὐτὸ μηδὲν κοινὸν μηδὲ ἴδιον ἔχειν τι τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ πρὸς τὰ κτίσματα, ἀλλʼ ἄλλο μὲν εἶναι τῶν γενητῶν, ἴδιον δὲ καὶ οὐ ξέ νον τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίας καὶ θεότητος, διʼ ἣν καὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὂν, καταισχύνει τὴν ἐκείνων ἀναισθη σίαν. Ἴδωμεν δὲ ὅμως καὶ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παράδοσιν καὶ διδασκαλίαν καὶ πίστιν τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἣν ὁ μὲν Κύριος ἔδωκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν, καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἐφύλαξαν. Ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἡ Ἐκκλησία τεθεμελίωται, καὶ ὁ ταύτης ἐκπίπτων οὔτ' ἂν εἴη, οὔτʼ ἂν ἔτι λέγοιτο Χριστιανός. Τριὰς τοίνυν ἁγία καὶ τελεία ἐστὶν, ἐν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι θεολογου μένη, οὐδὲν ἀλλότριον ἢ ἔξωθεν ἐπιμιγνύμενον ἔχουσα, οὐδὲ ἐκ δημιουργοῦ καὶ γενητοῦ συνισταμένη, ἀλλʼ ὅλη τοῦ κτίζειν καὶ δημιουργεῖν οὖσα· ὁμοία δὲ ἑαυτῇ καὶ ἀδιαίρετός ἐστι τῇ φύσει, καὶ μία ταύτης ἡ ἐνέργεια. Ὁ γὰρ Πατὴρ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ τὰ πάντα ποιεῖ· καὶ οὕτως ἡ ἑνότης τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος σώζεται· καὶ οὕτως εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ κηρύττεται, «ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ διὰ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.» «Ἐπὶ πάντων» μὲν ὡς Πατὴρ, ὡς ἀρχὴ, καὶ πηγή· «διὰ πάντων» δὲ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου· «ἐν πᾶσι» δὲ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ. Τριὰς δέ ἐστιν οὐχ ἕως ὀνόματος μόνον καὶ φαντασίας λέξεως, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ὑπάρξει Τριάς. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ὤ ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, οὕτως ὁ ὤν ἐστι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ὁ τούτου Λόγος. Καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἀνύπαρκτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ ὑπάρχει καὶ ὑφέστηκεν ἀλη θῶς. Καὶ οὔτε ἔλαττον τούτων φρονεῖ ἡ καθο λικὴ Ἐκκλησία, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τοὺς νῦν κατὰ Καϊάφαν Ἰουδαίους καὶ εἰς Σαβέλλιον ἐμπέσῃ· οὔτε πλεῖον ἐπινοεῖ, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τὴν Ἑλλήνων πολυθεότητα κυ λισθῇ. Καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἡ πίστις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐστὶ, μαθέτωσαν πῶς ὁ μὲν Κύριος ἀποστέλλων τοὺς ἀπο στόλους παρήγγειλε τοῦτον θεμέλιον τιθέναι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ λέγων· «Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.» Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem, 1.27·28, PG 26:593, 596.

Commenting on this passage from Ad Serapion 1.28, Shapland explains that the tradition to which Athanasius referred above is NOT unwritten tradition when he writes: “It is important to understand what Athanasius is appealing to here. The passage from ad Adelph. which we have already quoted makes it clear that tradition to Athanasius is not an indefinite source of knowledge, independent of Scripture. Not only does he insist upon the sufficiency of Scripture (de Syn. 6 and elsewhere), he does not strictly distinguish tradition and Scripture. See Robertson, Intro. lxxiv. Nor is he appealing to the authority of earlier Fathers. . . .The real direction of Athanasius’s appeal is to be understood from the citation of the baptismal formula later on. It is of the faith as delivered, expounded, and confessed in baptism that he is thinking. Thus the τεθεμελίωται of the succeeding sentence is taken up again in the preamble to the citation of Matthew 28:19 by τοῦτον θεμέλιον τιθέναι, making it plain that the θεμέλιον is nothing other than the threefold Name as invoked in baptism. See C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.28 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), footnote # 28², pp. 133-134.

Athanasius (297-373): They have put themselves in an absurd position. Because they cannot understand how the holy Triad is indivisible, the Arians make the Son one with the creation, and the Tropici, for their part, number the Spirit with the creatures. It would be better for them either to say nothing at all in their incomprehension, the Arians not ranking the Son with the creatures nor the Tropici the Spirit; or else to acknowledge what is written, and join the Son to the Father and not divide the Spirit from the Son—so that the Holy Triad may still be rightly characterized as indivisible and of one nature. . . . All the more presumptuous, then, if, when we cannot speak, we devise for these subjects strange forms of expression other than those in the Scriptures. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.17 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), pp. 105-106.

Athanasius (297-373): Therefore, since such an attempt is futile and a surplus of madness, let no one ask such questions any more, or else learn only what is in the Scriptures. For the symbols (paradeigmata, παραδείγματα) in the Scriptures which pertain to these questions are sufficient and adequate. Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1.19 (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 217.

Athanasius (297-373): Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations (paradeigmata, παραδείγματα) they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.19 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 108.
Greek text: Περιττῆς τοιγαροῦν καὶ πλέον μανίας οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιχειρήσεως, μηκέτι τοιαῦτά τις ἐρω τάτω, ἢ μόνον τὰ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς μανθανέτω. Αὐτάρκη γὰρ καὶ ἱκανὰ τὰ ἐν ταύταις κείμενα περὶ τούτου παραδείγματα. Ad Serapionem 1.19, PG 26:573.

Athanasius (297-373): 13. Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Savior? “We have read,” they will say, “in the Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works;’” this Eusebius and his fellows used to insist on, and you write me word, that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory. For on comparing what has been above stated with this passage, they will find a great difference between them. For what man of right understanding does not perceive, that what are created and made are external to the maker; but the Son, as the foregoing argument has shewn, exists not externally, but from the Father who begat Him? for man too both builds a house and begets a son, and no one would reverse things, and say that the house or the ship were begotten by the builder, but the son was created and made by him; nor again that the house was an image of the maker, but the son unlike him who begat him; but rather he will confess that the son is an image of the father, but the house a work of art, unless his mind be disordered, and he beside himself. Plainly, divine Scripture, which knows better than any the nature of everything, says through Moses, of the creatures, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earths;’ but of the Son it introduces not another, but the Father Himself saying, ‘I have begotten Thee from the womb before the morning star;’ and again, ‘Thou art My’ Son, this day have I begotten Thee.’ And the Lord says of Himself in the Proverbs, ‘Before all the hills He begets me;’ and concerning things originated and created John speaks, ‘All things were made by Him;’ but preaching of the Lord, he says, ‘The Only-be-gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared Him.’ If then son, therefore not creature; if creature, not son; for great is the difference between them, and son and creature cannot be the same, unless His essence be considered to be at once from God, and external to God.
14. ‘Has then the passage no meaning?’ for this, like a swarm of gnats, they are droning about us. No surely, it is not without meaning, but has a very apposite one; for it is true to say that the Son was created too, but this took place when He became man; for creation belongs to man. And any one may find this sense duly given in the divine oracles, who, instead of accounting their study a secondary matter, investigates the time and characters, and the object, and thus studies and ponders what he reads. NPNF2: Vol. IV, De Decretis or Defense of the Nicene Definition, Chapter III, §13-14.
Greek text: 13.1 Οὐκοῦν λοιπὸν λεγέτωσαν, πόθεν ἄρα καὶ οὗτοι μαθόντες ἢ τίνος αὐτοῖς παρα δεδωκότος τοιαῦτα περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ὑπονοεῖν ἤρξαντο. ἀνέγνωμεν, φήσουσιν, ἐν 13.2 ταῖς Παροιμίαις· «κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ». καὶ γὰρ καὶ οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον τοῦτο λέγειν ἐδόκουν, καὶ σὺ δὲ γράφων ἐδήλωσας, ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν μὲν ἀποδείξεων ἀνατρεπόμενοι καὶ οὗτοι κατεγινώσκοντο, τοῦτο δὲ ὅμως αὐτοὶ τὸ ῥητὸν ἄνω καὶ κάτω περιφέροντες ἓν τῶν κτισμάτων τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι ἔλεγον καὶ τοῖς γενητοῖς 13.3 αὐτὸν συνηρίθμουν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο δοκοῦσί μοι μὴ νενοηκέναι καλῶς· ἔχει γὰρ τὴν διάνοιαν εὐσεβῆ καὶ λίαν ὀρθήν, ἣν εἰ καὶ αὐτοὶ νενοήκεισαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐβλασφήμησαν. τὰ γὰρ προειρημένα εἰς τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦτο συμβαλλέτωσαν, καὶ 13.4 ὄψονται πολλὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς οὖσαν τὴν διαφοράν. τίς γὰρ οὐ συνορᾷ διάνοιαν ἔχων ὀρθήν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν κτιζόμενα καὶ ποιούμενα ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ὁ δὲ υἱός, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ἔδειξεν ὁ λόγος, οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ γεννῶντος πατρὸς ὑπάρχει; καὶ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος κτίζει μὲν οἰκίαν, γεννᾷ δὲ υἱόν, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἀναστρέφων εἴποι τὴν μὲν οἰκίαν καὶ τὴν ναῦν γεννᾶσθαι παρὰ τοῦ κατασκευάζοντος, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν κτίζεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ πάλιν τὴν μὲν οἰκίαν εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίζοντος, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἀνόμοιον τοῦ γεννῶντος. ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸν μὲν υἱὸν εἰκόνα τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμολογήσει, τὴν δὲ οἰκίαν τέχνης εἶναι δημιούργημα, εἰ μή τις ἄρα τὴν διάνοιαν νοσοίη καὶ τὰς φρένας παρεξεστη 13.5 κὼς τυγχάνοι. ἀμέλει πάντων μᾶλλον ἡ θεία γραφὴ γινώσκουσα τὴν ἑκάστου φύσιν περὶ μὲν τῶν κτιζομένων διὰ Μωυσέος φησίν· «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν»· περὶ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐχ ἕτερον, ἀλλ' αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα σημαίνει λέγοντα· «ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε»· καὶ πάλιν· «υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε»· αὐτός τε περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ κύριος ἐν Παροιμίαις λέγει· «πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με»· καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν γενητῶν καὶ κτιστῶν ὁ Ἰωάννης φησί· «πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο»· περὶ δὲ τοῦ κυρίου εὐαγγελιζόμενος λέγει· «ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ 13.6 ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο». εἰ τοίνυν υἱός, οὐ κτίσμα, εἰ δὲ κτίσμα, οὐχ υἱός· πολλὴ γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡ διαφορά. καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη αὐτὸς υἱὸς καὶ κτίσμα, ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ οὐσία αὐτοῦ νομίζηται.
14.1 Ἆρʼ οὖν μάτην γέγραπται τοῦτο τὸ ῥητόν; τοῦτο γὰρ πάλιν ἐκεῖνοι περιβομ βοῦσιν ὡς ἀγέλη κωνώπων. οὐχί γε, οὐ μάτην γέγραπται, ἀλλὰ καὶ μάλα ἀναγκαίως. καὶ γὰρ καὶ κτίζεσθαι λέγεται, ἀλλ' ὅτε γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος· ἀνθρώπου γὰρ ἴδιον τοῦτο. τὴν δὲ διάνοιαν ταύτην εὑρήσει καλῶς ἐν τοῖς λογίοις κειμένην ὁ μὴ πάρεργον ἡγούμενος τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν καιρὸν καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα καὶ τὴν χρείαν τῶν γεγραμμένων 14.2 ἐρευνῶν καὶ οὕτω τὰ ἀναγνώσματα διακρίνων καὶ διανοούμενος. De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi, §13-14, PG 445, 447.

Athanasius (297-373): But as they [i.e., the Arians] plead the passage in Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me, a beginning of his ways, for his works’, adding, ‘See, “He created”! He is a creature!’: we must show from this passage too how greatly they err, not realizing the scope of divine Scripture. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 2.7 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), pp. 163-164. See also MPG 26:620.
Greek text: Ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ προφασίζονται τὸ ἐν ταῖς Παροιμίαις γεγραμμένον τὸ, «Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ,» καὶ ἐπιλέγουσιν ἑαυτοῖς· Ἰδοὺ ἔκτισε, καὶ κτίσμα ἐστίν· ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ ἐκ τούτου δεῖξαι ὅσον πλανῶνται, μὴ εἰδότες τὸν σκοπὸν τῆς θείας Γραφῆς. Ad Serapionem 2.7, PG 26:620.

Athanasius (297-373): ‘But,’ says the Arian, ‘is it not written?’ Yes, it is written! And is is necessary that it should be said. But what is well written is ill understood by heretics. If they had understood and grasped the terms in which Christianity is expressed, they would not have called the Lord of glory a creature nor stumbled over what is well written. They therefore, ‘knew not, neither did they understand.’ Therefore, as it is written: ‘They walk in darkness.’ But as for us, speak we must, that in this matter also they may be shown up as fools, that we may not neglect to answer their impiety, and that they may perhaps even repent. These then are the terms in which we express our faith in Christ: the Son of God, being the Word of God (‘in the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was God’), being the Wisdom and Power of the Father (‘Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God), at the ‘end of the ages’ became man for our salvation. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 2.7 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 163-164.
Greek text: Οὐ γέγραπται οὖν; φησί. Ναὶ γέγραπται, καὶ ἀναγκαίως εἴρηται· ἀλλὰ κακῶς νοοῦσι τὸ καλῶς εἰρημένον οἱ αἱρετικοί. Εἰ γὰρ ἐνόουν καὶ ἐγίνωσκον τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ, οὐκ ἂν τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης ἔλεγον κτίσμα εἶναι, οὐδὲ προσέκοπτον τῷ γεγραμμένῳ καλῶς. Ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν «οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, οὐδὲ συνῆκαν·» διὰ τοῦτο, ὡς γέγραπται, «ἐν σκότῳ διαπορεύονται·» ἡμᾶς δὲ ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον εἰπεῖν, ἵνʼ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ δειχθῶσιν ἄφρονες, ἡμεῖς δὲ μὴ παραλίπωμεν τὸν κατὰ τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ἔλεγχον, ἴσως καὶ αὐτοὶ μεταγνῶσιν. Ὁ χαρακτὴρ τοίνυν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ πίστεώς ἐστιν οὗτος, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Λόγον ὄντα Θεόν («Ἐν ἀρχῇ γὰρ ὁ Λόγος, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος»), σοφίαν ὄντα καὶ δύναμιν τοῦ Πατρός (Χριστὸς γὰρ Θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία), τοῦτον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν. Ad Serapionem 2.7, PG 26:620A-Β.

Athanasius (297-373): In these terms, derived from the Apostles through the Fathers, our faith is expressed. It remains that he who reads Scripture should examine and judge when it speaks of the Godhead of the Word, and when it speaks of his human life; lest, by understanding the one when the other is intended, we become victims of the same derangement as has befallen the Arians. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 2.8 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 164.
Greek text: Ὁ μὲν χαρακτὴρ οὗτος ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων διὰ τῶν Πατέρων· δεῖ δὲ λοιπὸν, ἐντυγχάνοντα τῇ Γραφῇ, δοκιμάζειν καὶ διακρίνειν, πότε μὲν περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Λόγου λέγει, πότε δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων αὐτοῦ· 26.621 ἵνα μὴ ἕτερα ἀνθ' ἑτέρων νοοῦντες παραπαίωμεν, οἷα πεπόνθασιν οἱ Ἀρειανοί. Ad Serapionem 2.8, PG 26:620-621.
C. R. B. Shapland, footnote 8¹ examine and judge: and so de Dec. 14: ‘Any one may find this sense . . . who investigates the time and characters (πρόσωπα), and the object, and thus judges and ponders what he reads.’ C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 2.8 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 164.

Athanasius (297-373): Who delivered these things to them? Who was their teacher? Certainly no one taught them out of the divine Scriptures. It was out of the abundance of their hearts this folly came. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 4.5 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 186.
Greek text: Τίς γὰρ αὐτοῖς παρέδωκε ταῦτα; Τίς ὁ διδάξας; Ἀλλʼ οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐξῆλθεν ἡ τοιαύτη παραφροσύνη. Ad Serapionem 4.5, PG 26:645.

This is probably the most important work of Athanasius on the person of the Holy Spirit.

DTK